A casino would rather have a player make lots of little wagers on a game like roulette, rather than one big one.
If a player makes lots of little wagers, then they're more likely to feed the money back through the system.
Let me give you the hot tip that if you walk into any casino in the world, and try to put $500million on red, that they won't accept the bet.
However, if you offered to make 500million bets of $1, they would jump all over you to accept the bet and you could probably have the CEO of the operation personally sing you lullabies to help you sleep.
Does that example help explain the effect of variance?
Think of a fish who deposits $100 into your hypothetical online poker room.
In this hypothetical thought experiment, the hands are entirely pre-determined, the results fixed, and you get to choose precisely how quickly/slowly the fish loses his money.
You have two options:
Option A: The fish gets all-in on the first hand for $100 thanks to your action hand, the total pot size is $200, and you take 50c rake ('cause it hit the cap). The fish loses the pot, the house takes 50c*, and the shark has a net profit of $99.50.
Option B: The fish and the shark don't have any action hands, but rather, has hundreds of hands. In this hypothetical example, they play 50 hands of poker, and the rake in the hands adds up to an average of 10c per hand. The fish eventually goes bust, the house takes $5 (10c * 50) and the shark has a net profit of $95.
If you're going to fix the result in this hypothetical thought experiment with the sole intention of making more money, which do you choose? Option A, where you have income of 50c, or Option B, where you have income of $5?
(*The house actually has a significant net loss because the house has to pay the transaction/deposit/withdrawal fees, software fees, support fees, and so on)
Action Flops Reduce Poker Site Income
A common myth is that 'action flops' (hands where there is lots of betting) increase poker site revenue.
This myth exists because the people who propagate it have a fundamental misunderstanding of how transactional sites - whether it being gambling or poker or whatever - make their money.
Why action hands hurt the profitability of online poker sites
The people who make these claims don't even realise that what they are saying is self-contradictory.
You can't simultaneously claim that there are Action Flops (to increase betting) while claiming that the purpose is to keep bad players in the game longer. "Action flops" increase betting, and increase variance... and the greater the pot size and the bigger the variance, the faster the fish go bust.
This is like someone pointing at a green wall, saying it is black, and in the next breath, they're claiming it is white. Not only are both claims wrong and false, but they're also internally self-contradictory.
People can claim to have action flops (to generate action/rake) or people can claim that there's a plot to keep bad players in the game longer. You can have one or the other - not both, because one stops the other from happening.
All gambling operations - online or offline - make their money from churn. They make money by having people repeatedly wager it over and over and over.
So, therefore, a site would generally profit more from low variance situations than high variance situations.
Therefore - and this is now self-evident - a site is actually harmed by bigger pots. A site is actually better off (relatively speaking) with 100 pots of $1, than one pot of $100. The same principle applies to roulette, slot machines, and so on.
Now, what are "action hands"? Action hands are high variance situations: where the rake is capped and there is lots of betting. We have just proved that high variance situations are not good for the site, and therefore, we have proved that action hands are not good for the site. Thus, there is simply no motive for a site to generate action hands: if anything, there would be motive to generate anti-action hands.
This myth exists because the people who propagate it have a fundamental misunderstanding of how transactional sites - whether it being gambling or poker or whatever - make their money.
Why action hands hurt the profitability of online poker sites
The people who make these claims don't even realise that what they are saying is self-contradictory.
You can't simultaneously claim that there are Action Flops (to increase betting) while claiming that the purpose is to keep bad players in the game longer. "Action flops" increase betting, and increase variance... and the greater the pot size and the bigger the variance, the faster the fish go bust.
This is like someone pointing at a green wall, saying it is black, and in the next breath, they're claiming it is white. Not only are both claims wrong and false, but they're also internally self-contradictory.
People can claim to have action flops (to generate action/rake) or people can claim that there's a plot to keep bad players in the game longer. You can have one or the other - not both, because one stops the other from happening.
All gambling operations - online or offline - make their money from churn. They make money by having people repeatedly wager it over and over and over.
So, therefore, a site would generally profit more from low variance situations than high variance situations.
Therefore - and this is now self-evident - a site is actually harmed by bigger pots. A site is actually better off (relatively speaking) with 100 pots of $1, than one pot of $100. The same principle applies to roulette, slot machines, and so on.
Now, what are "action hands"? Action hands are high variance situations: where the rake is capped and there is lots of betting. We have just proved that high variance situations are not good for the site, and therefore, we have proved that action hands are not good for the site. Thus, there is simply no motive for a site to generate action hands: if anything, there would be motive to generate anti-action hands.
Runs of Big Hands
Complaint:
The fact that this stuff happens is evidence that the shuffle is random.
The fact that something that has just a small chance to happen, and subsequently does happen, itself suggests that the shuffle is truly random.
....lol but last night i played in a 45 person Sit N Go and once I got heads up, I had a run at the end where in 4 consecutive hands I had: KK,KK,AA,KK .....seemed a lil fishy to me lol but hey i ended up winning the whole thing so no complaints here :)Response:
The fact that this stuff happens is evidence that the shuffle is random.
The fact that something that has just a small chance to happen, and subsequently does happen, itself suggests that the shuffle is truly random.
